Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.
stringlengths 74
421
| If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
stringlengths 36
192
| Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 788
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street
stringclasses 788
values | modus ponen
stringclasses 2
values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1
stringclasses 394
values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street
stringclasses 394
values | True
bool 1
class | text
stringlengths 453
800
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, hence a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | modus ponen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, hence a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, hence emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of anger management issues | John davis did not have a history of anger management issues | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, hence emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, as if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby. | If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus tollen | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, as if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, which shows that a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack. | If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus ponen | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, which shows that a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, thus the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | modus tollen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, thus the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, which establishes that laura had not recently changed her social media passwords. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, which establishes that laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, as if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, as if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, because if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | modus ponen | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, because if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, therefore emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | modus tollen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, therefore emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, hence officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, hence officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which implies that a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which implies that a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, because if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | modus ponen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, because if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, therefore a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo. | If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then sally is older than john | Sally is not older than john | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | modus tollen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | Sally is older than John | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | Sally is not older than John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, therefore a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is exciting then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is exciting, which shows that the movie is a documentary. | If the movie is exciting then the movie is a documentary | The movie is exciting | The movie is a documentary | modus ponen | The movie is exciting | The movie is a documentary | The movie is not exciting | The movie is not a documentary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is exciting then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is exciting, which shows that the movie is a documentary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, since if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, since if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, hence the sun is not shining brightly overhead. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The book is written by a famous author | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, hence the sun is not shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, hence john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | modus ponen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, hence john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If paris is in france then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, hence paris is not in france. | If paris is in france then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Paris is not in France | modus tollen | Paris is in France | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | Paris is not in France | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If paris is in france then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, hence paris is not in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, therefore john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | modus ponen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, therefore john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, so a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack. | If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus ponen | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, so a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a biography then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so the book is not a biography. | If the book is a biography then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The book is not a biography | modus tollen | The book is a biography | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The book is not a biography | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a biography then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so the book is not a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, hence the victim's name is sarah mitchell. | If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the victim's name is sarah mitchell | A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | modus ponen | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, hence the victim's name is sarah mitchell.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the book is on the bestseller list, which establishes that the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker. | If the book is on the bestseller list then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The book is on the bestseller list | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | modus ponen | The book is on the bestseller list | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The book is not on the bestseller list | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the bestseller list then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the book is on the bestseller list, which establishes that the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, thus sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder. | If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | modus ponen | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, thus sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a comedy then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which implies that the movie is not a comedy. | If the movie is a comedy then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The movie is not a comedy | modus tollen | The movie is a comedy | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The movie is not a comedy | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a comedy then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which implies that the movie is not a comedy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, thus the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause. | If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the dog is happy | The dog is not happy | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The dog is happy | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | The dog is not happy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, thus the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Cats are mammals, since if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then cats are mammals and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then cats are mammals | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Cats are mammals | modus ponen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Cats are mammals | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Cats are not mammals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Cats are mammals, since if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then cats are mammals and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, so the dog is barking at the dog next door. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is barking at the dog next door | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The dog is barking at the dog next door | modus ponen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The dog is barking at the dog next door | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, so the dog is barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, so officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | modus ponen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, so officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If cats are mammals then the dog is happy, and cats are mammals, thus the dog is happy. | If cats are mammals then the dog is happy | Cats are mammals | The dog is happy | modus ponen | Cats are mammals | The dog is happy | Cats are not mammals | The dog is not happy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If cats are mammals then the dog is happy, and cats are mammals, thus the dog is happy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura did not have a life insurance policy, because if laura had a life insurance policy then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat. | If laura had a life insurance policy then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | modus tollen | Laura had a life insurance policy | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura did not have a life insurance policy, because if laura had a life insurance policy then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, because if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the dog is not barking at the dog next door. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the dog is barking at the dog next door | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, because if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the dog is not barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus tollen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The bird is singing, since if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the bird is singing and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the bird is singing | Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | The bird is singing | modus ponen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The bird is singing | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | The bird is not singing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The bird is singing, since if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the bird is singing and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, hence the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased. | If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | modus tollen | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, hence the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, therefore the baby is not crying in the stroller. | If the baby is crying in the stroller then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | John davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The baby is not crying in the stroller | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the stroller | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The baby is not crying in the stroller | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the stroller then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, therefore the baby is not crying in the stroller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's laptop was found smashed, therefore laura's garage door was left open. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then laura's garage door was left open | Laura's laptop was found smashed | Laura's garage door was left open | modus ponen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | Laura's garage door was left open | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's laptop was found smashed, therefore laura's garage door was left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, so it can be concluded that the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, so it can be concluded that the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the movie is a family film, and the cat is sleeping in the sun, so it can be concluded that the movie is a family film. | If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the movie is a family film | The cat is sleeping in the sun | The movie is a family film | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping in the sun | The movie is a family film | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | The movie is not a family film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the movie is a family film, and the cat is sleeping in the sun, so it can be concluded that the movie is a family film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, which establishes that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout. | If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | modus tollen | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, which establishes that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, hence a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway. | If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | modus ponen | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, hence a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is hot and humid, as if dogs are not fish then the weather is hot and humid and dogs are not fish. | If dogs are not fish then the weather is hot and humid | Dogs are not fish | The weather is hot and humid | modus ponen | Dogs are not fish | The weather is hot and humid | Dogs are fish | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is hot and humid, as if dogs are not fish then the weather is hot and humid and dogs are not fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, which implies that emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout. | If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | modus ponen | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, which implies that emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, which shows that the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage. | If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | modus ponen | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, which shows that the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, therefore a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home. | If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | modus tollen | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, therefore a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the dog next door then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and the dog is barking at the dog next door, thus a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night. | If the dog is barking at the dog next door then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The dog is barking at the dog next door | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the dog next door then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and the dog is barking at the dog next door, thus a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the tree is shedding leaves, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which implies that the tree is shedding leaves. | If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the tree is shedding leaves | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The tree is shedding leaves | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The tree is shedding leaves | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The tree is not shedding leaves | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the tree is shedding leaves, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which implies that the tree is shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the car is a hybrid, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, which establishes that the car is a hybrid. | If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the car is a hybrid | Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The car is a hybrid | modus ponen | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The car is a hybrid | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | The car is not a hybrid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the car is a hybrid, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, which establishes that the car is a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, so the weather is not cloudy and rainy. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The cat is grooming itself | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, so the weather is not cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the book is a biography, and the book is not a biography, so it can be concluded that laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently. | If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the book is a biography | The book is not a biography | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | modus tollen | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The book is a biography | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | The book is not a biography | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the book is a biography, and the book is not a biography, so it can be concluded that laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues, as if the suspect had a history of mental health issues then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public. | If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had no history of mental health issues, as if the suspect had a history of mental health issues then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, therefore the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura had installed a home security system | Laura had not installed a home security system | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | Laura had installed a home security system | The dog is not barking at the mailman | Laura had not installed a home security system | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, therefore the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, since if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop. | If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | modus tollen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, since if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, since if a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment. | If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | modus tollen | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, since if a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, hence the stolen van was registered in a fake name. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, hence the stolen van was registered in a fake name.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, so detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus ponen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, so detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, which establishes that the sun is setting slowly in the sky. | If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | modus ponen | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, which establishes that the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, which establishes that the baby is not laughing at the toy. | If the baby is laughing at the toy then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | The baby is not laughing at the toy | modus tollen | The baby is laughing at the toy | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The baby is not laughing at the toy | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is laughing at the toy then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, which establishes that the baby is not laughing at the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, so it can be concluded that no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace. | If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the dog is happy | The dog is not happy | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | modus tollen | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The dog is happy | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The dog is not happy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, so it can be concluded that no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the weather is nice, and the weather is not nice, therefore no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the weather is nice | The weather is not nice | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The weather is nice | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The weather is not nice | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the weather is nice, and the weather is not nice, therefore no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, so it can be concluded that john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, so it can be concluded that john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the tree is tall, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, so it can be concluded that the tree is tall. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the tree is tall | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The tree is tall | modus ponen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The tree is tall | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | The tree is not tall | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the tree is tall, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, so it can be concluded that the tree is tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, so it can be concluded that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, so it can be concluded that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, so surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | modus ponen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, so surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, and the weather is cold and snowy, so it can be concluded that richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine. | If the weather is cold and snowy then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | The weather is cold and snowy | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | modus ponen | The weather is cold and snowy | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | The weather is not cold and snowy | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and snowy then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, and the weather is cold and snowy, so it can be concluded that richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the movie is a musical film, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, therefore the movie is a musical film. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the movie is a musical film | John davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The movie is a musical film | modus ponen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The movie is a musical film | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | The movie is not a musical film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the movie is a musical film, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, therefore the movie is a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the book is interesting, and the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, which shows that the book is interesting. | If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the book is interesting | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The book is interesting | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The book is interesting | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The book is not interesting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the book is interesting, and the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, which shows that the book is interesting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, which shows that the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | modus tollen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, which shows that the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, thus a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect. | If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | modus tollen | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, thus a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, so it can be concluded that the bird is not singing. | If the bird is singing then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | The bird is not singing | modus tollen | The bird is singing | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The bird is not singing | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the bird is singing then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, so it can be concluded that the bird is not singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, thus the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder. | If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, thus the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sky is blue then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and the sky is blue, therefore a bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If the sky is blue then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | The sky is blue | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus ponen | The sky is blue | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The sky is not blue | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sky is blue then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and the sky is blue, therefore a bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, hence laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, hence laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a secret storage unit, as if john davis had a secret storage unit then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal. | If john davis had a secret storage unit then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | modus tollen | John Davis had a secret storage unit | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a secret storage unit, as if john davis had a secret storage unit then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, which implies that laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The baby is crawling towards the cat | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, which implies that laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, since if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the dog is barking at the stranger and the dog is not barking at the stranger. | If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the dog is barking at the stranger | The dog is not barking at the stranger | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | modus tollen | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The dog is barking at the stranger | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | The dog is not barking at the stranger | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, since if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the dog is barking at the stranger and the dog is not barking at the stranger.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, thus no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past | John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, thus no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the movie is a comedy-drama, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, which shows that the movie is a comedy-drama. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the movie is a comedy-drama | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The movie is a comedy-drama | modus ponen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The movie is a comedy-drama | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the movie is a comedy-drama, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, which shows that the movie is a comedy-drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, so sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, so sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which shows that the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which shows that the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, so a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home. | If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | modus tollen | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, so a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, which shows that the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees. | If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, which shows that the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, so a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | modus ponen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, so a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If a gas leak was detected in the basement then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | A gas leak was detected in the basement | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus ponen | A gas leak was detected in the basement | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gas leak was detected in the basement then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the victim's name is not sarah mitchell, so it can be concluded that the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim's name is sarah mitchell | The victim's name is not sarah mitchell | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the victim's name is not sarah mitchell, so it can be concluded that the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data, therefore the baby is not playing with a toy car. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | The baby is not playing with a toy car | modus tollen | The baby is playing with a toy car | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The baby is not playing with a toy car | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with a toy car then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data, therefore the baby is not playing with a toy car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the stranger then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the dog is barking at the stranger, which establishes that the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The dog is barking at the stranger | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the stranger | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The dog is not barking at the stranger | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the stranger then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the dog is barking at the stranger, which establishes that the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not playing with a toy car, since if the baby is playing with a toy car then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | The baby is not playing with a toy car | modus tollen | The baby is playing with a toy car | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | The baby is not playing with a toy car | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not playing with a toy car, since if the baby is playing with a toy car then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat, because if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the baby is crawling towards the cat and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the baby is crawling towards the cat | Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The baby is crawling towards the cat | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The baby is crawling towards the cat | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is crawling towards the cat, because if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the baby is crawling towards the cat and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Water is not h2o, since if water is h2o then the dog is barking and the dog is not barking. | If water is h2o then the dog is barking | The dog is not barking | Water is not H2O | modus tollen | Water is H2O | The dog is barking | Water is not H2O | The dog is not barking | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Water is not h2o, since if water is h2o then the dog is barking and the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, so it can be concluded that no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, so it can be concluded that no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, which establishes that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home. | If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the movie is a documentary | The movie is not a documentary | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | modus tollen | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | The movie is a documentary | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | The movie is not a documentary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, which establishes that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, so john davis had a cache of illegal firearms. | If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms | A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | modus ponen | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, so john davis had a cache of illegal firearms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a musical film then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and the movie is a musical film, which implies that a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If the movie is a musical film then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | The movie is a musical film | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus ponen | The movie is a musical film | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The movie is not a musical film | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a musical film then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and the movie is a musical film, which implies that a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, which shows that laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions. | If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, which shows that laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, so it can be concluded that the suspect's name is not john davis. | If the suspect's name is john davis then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | The suspect's name is not John Davis | modus tollen | The suspect's name is John Davis | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The suspect's name is not John Davis | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, so it can be concluded that the suspect's name is not john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which shows that the sun is setting slowly in the sky. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | modus ponen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which shows that the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.